- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 202152 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RAMESH KANKATTE S/O PEERANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST GRADE A TERRITORIAL SUB DIVISION BIDAR, R/AT 9-12-488, 6TH CROSS VIDYANAGAR COLONY, BIDAR – 585 401 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.MD.IBRAHIM MINHAJUDDIN KHATIB, ADV. SMT.P.CHITRA POORNIMA, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE (PREVIOUSLY ANTI-COORUPTION BUREAU) REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI – 585 102 2. POLICE INSPECTOR LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION (PREVIOUSLY ANTI-COORUPTION BUREAU) BIDAR – 585 401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, SPL. PP.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 15.03.2022 REGISTERED BY THE LOKAYUKTA Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 POLICE (PREVIOUSLY ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU), BIDAR AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.2/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 13(1)(b) AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BIDAR AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing the FIR dated 15.03.2022 registered by the respondent – Lokayukta Police in Cr.No.2/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for brevity, ‘P.C. Act’), 1988. Factual matrix of the case: 2. A source report dated 11.03.2022 regarding the income, assets and expenditure of the plaintiff as calculated by respondent No.2 was submitted to the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bidar. As per the contents of the source report, it was alleged that, the total value of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 assets of the petitioner during the check period amounts to Rs.2,15,95,000/- and his total expenditure is Rs.21,00,000/- while the total income earned is Rs.75,00,000/-, thus, showing that the petitioner allegedly accumulated the assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.1,65,95,000/- i.e., 215.93%. Consequently, it has been alleged that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Based on the said report, a case came to be registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.2/2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing the FIR dated 15.03.2022 registered by the respondent – Lokayukta Police. 3. Heard Sri. M.D. Ibrahim Minhajuddin Khathib and Smt. P. Chitra Poornima, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gourish S Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondents. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner is unsubstantiated, baseless and untenable in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 5. It is further submitted that the Authority has received an information regarding accumulating disproportionate assets are not substantiated with any reasons or additional information, whatsoever and are purely based on the assumptions. The Source report in this case has been formulated as a guilt finding mechanism merely to create grounds for the initiation of raid proceedings against the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner and his father- in-law both were government officials. The Investigating Officer has failed to take into account the respective sources of income. 7. It is further submitted that the assets of the petitioner have been exorbitantly valued in the source report without taking proper instructions regarding actual value of the property. 8. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 did not seek any explanation from the petitioner in respect of assets mentioned in the source report. Had the petitioner been afforded an opportunity to give his explanation about the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 assets, he would have provided the actual information with regard to their true valuation and ownership of the respective properties. 9. It is further submitted that the second check mechanism is contained in Section 17 of the P.C. Act which mandatorily places responsibility on officers at the level of Superintendent of Police and above, to pass an order authorizing the filing of such case. Such authorization is not merely formality and the authorizing officer is required to peruse all the documents placed before him, apply his mind and then, conclude whether a prima-facie case is made out which warrants the registration of a criminal case against a public servant. The same is lacking in this case and therefore, the registration of case is bad in law. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – Lokayukta filed a statement of objections to the writ petition contending that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. In fact, the petitioner has suppressed the very - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 crucial facts that the final report is prepared which is containing voluminous documents running into more than 2300 pages. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner may urge any of the grounds even in the trial. Prima-facie, there are materials made out against the petitioner, at this juncture, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 12. It is further submitted that at the time of considering the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see only the prima-facie materials available on record. On reading of the entire complaint and its averments, if it discloses that the matter is required to be referred for trial, the Court has to abstain from interfering with the investigation. Generally, it is not always desirable to interfere with the investigation by the Constitutional Courts as a matter of routine, unless, the averments of the complaint would disclose no prima-facie case. Therefore, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned Spl.P.P., for the respondent- Lokayuktha prays to reject the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available on record, before adverting to the merits of the case, it is appropriate, at this juncture, to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 1State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai City – 1 Department Vs. G. Easwaran wherein in this case, it is opined that for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Courts are required to see as to whether or not there is sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused based on the material. 14. Similarly, in the case of 2State of Tamil Nadu By Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti corruption Vs N. Suresh Rajan and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 32.4 held that the Court has not sifted the materials for the purpose of finding out whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused but whether that would warrant a conviction. 1 2025 SCC online SC 643 2 (2014) 11 SCC 709 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 15. Having considered the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it makes clear that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry, whether the evidence in question are reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. Further stated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. 16. In the present case, the investigation is under progress. Respondent No.1 collected source report and also information regarding disproportionate assets. As per the submissions of learned Special Public Prosecutor, the voluminous documents have been collected to submit the charge sheet. Therefore, at this stage, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 17. In view of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4068 WP No. 202152 of 2024 ORDER • The Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5